But What About the Poor?

When I was growing up in California, my parents took a newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle. Every day, before school, I would read about California Democrats. I remember clearly that their standard response to any and every policy proposal was the same, “What about the poor?” Want to build a road? What about the poor? Want to build a sewer? What about the poor? Want to build a luxury hotel? What about the poor? Regarding the luxury hotel, a certain percentage of the hotel rooms had to be set aside so that poor people could enjoy luxury hotel rooms.

Even as a teenager, this seemed like the dumbest thing in the world. Do poor people really benefit from have a certain number of luxury hotel rooms set aside for them? Really, does that help? Might there be other benefits and efforts that would be more effective? It seemed to me that what was driving the incessant questioning of “What about the poor?” wasn’t so much a real concern about the poor but about politics and political power. Specifically, the question “What about the poor?” was as much about the poor as it was about Democrats achieving political power.

The process by which the question, “What about the poor?” helps Democrats to achieve political power wasn’t clear to be then as this was before I learned the terms, “identity politics,” “political correctness,” “social justice,” and “virtue signaling,” but it was clear that the energy and concern seemed more driven by self-interest than empathy.

Several emotional dynamics drive the Democrat question, “What about the poor?” The first is, in California, intelligent, talented, and cooperative people working with other intelligent, talented, and cooperative people in a beautiful land creates a lot of wealth. The California Democrats, in contrast, seemed not so intelligent, talented, and cooperative, and yet they were very ambitious and not a little envious. The question, “What about the poor?” allows them to insert themselves into the activities and intelligent, talented, and cooperative people and control them, resulting in political power and access to tax dollars.

Moreover, such questioning is difficult to argue against. The for arguments allow the not-so-intelligent, not-so-talented, and not-so-cooperative to be speakers of truth and champions of justice without thinking to hard. And the newspaper articles and glowing TV interviews almost write themselves. Ultimately the California Democrat question, “What about the poor?” is dumb, ineffective at helping the poor, but effective at helping Democrats achieve career success.

For many years, this was just explained away as part of the cost of doing business, even though, as a teenager, I could tell this line of reasoning was effective in the short-term but ultimately dumb. However, the costs of doing business this way seem to have grown while the benefits, as I thought back then, never really obtained. California’s recent flirtations with high-speed rail, impossibly expensive healthcare, and decaying infrastructure all show that these casts cannot be borne indefinitely…

 

Deep-State Dinner Theater

Mark Steyn coined the phrase, “Deep-State Dinner Theater,” implying that the “Muh Russians” narrative put forth by the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats is an amusing pastime. The phrase captures an essential truth — that is, that the narrative is more fiction than non-fiction. I do not share Steyn’s view. but it is not quite apparent what the most accurate view is, what it implies, and what is likely to happen. There are three likely scenarios that come immediately to mind: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The “good” is that President Trump knows what he’s doing and is more than capable of playing 3-dimensional chess with the Democrats and Republicans In Name Only (RINOs). There are several reasons to believe this story. First, Trump has proven quite capable of dealing with difficult politics after dealing with the Republican primaries, Hillary, and James “Deep State” Comey. However, there is the matter of Robert Swan Mueller III as a special prosecutor, who just happened to be named FBI Director a week before 9/11 by President George W. Bush, the same position coincidentally held by James Comey. Mueller keeps hanging around and hiring old Clinton lawyers, which is more than a little unnerving.

The “bad” is that the government will not go after the only crimes that we know were committed, the leaking of classified information and of Trump administration names by the Obama administration, and will instead focus on the Russian narrative put forward by the Obama administration and the deep state because the narrative exists only to protect the Obama administration and the deep state. Just today, CNN and the Washington Post put forward a new, improved, and revised version of the Russian narrative. Note that these are two of the official information outlets of the deep state:

  • When the CIA wants to leak a damaging story they coordinate with the Washington Post and ABC. (and vice-versa).
  • When the State Dept. or FBI/DOJ wants to leak a damaging story they coordinate with CNN and the New York Times. (and vice-versa)

This consistent pattern has NEVER been broken, and it wasn’t broken today either. The Democrat and RINO deep state would not put the effort into the narrative unless there was an endgame and they were working towards an end goal, but it is not clear to me what that endgame is at this time. Is the goal merely and expression of frustration at having lost (and continuing to lose), is it meant to obstruct, or are they really going to try and impeach Trump? At this point, we don’t know.

The “ugly” concerns violence, of which there has been plenty: the anti-Trump violence in San Jose, the silencing of Republican voices, and most recently the shooting of Steve Scalise. The summer of #resistance could be merely expressive but could take a more physical form. The violence would have a political purpose to convince Americans that Trump cannot protect them and would choose an alternative, any alternative to grant a measure of peace and security. Already the idea of President Pence has has been floated, but to what purpose, we shall have to wait and see.

Espionage in the 21st Century

Growing up in 20th century America, it was easy to be a fan of James Bond, who had not just a license to kill but girls and cars, which was far better. Looking back, James Bond helped make the Cold War fun, but all good things must come to an end. The Cold War ended just as I was being exposed for the first time to the security world, and its realities were far more mundane than they looked in the movies. Yet espionage and spying retain a certain allure and relevance in the 21st century. Retired Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) said, “There are more spies in the United States today from foreign nation states that at any time in our history — including the Cold War.” That’s quite a claim, but I cannot help but wonder, what are they all doing? Rogers explains, “They’re stealing everything. If it’s not bolted down, it’s gone. And if it’s bolted down, give them about an hour — they’ll figure out how to get that, too.”

The evidence for these assessments isn’t at all clear, and Rogers seems to rely on the professional judgement of the intelligence community (IC). However, the IC’s interest isn’t exactly academic — their professional livelihood is tied up with the continuation and perpetuation of the intelligence game, and at times it really can seem like a game. Recently, it was revealed that the German spy agency, the BND, has been spying on the White House, but of course a few short years ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had excoriated the US for spying on her. Game indeed.

But to extract the emotion or affect out of the espionage game for just a moment, spying activities mostly entail simple data gathering so that governments can make informed policy decisions. The data gathered is organized by the processing, exploitation, and dissemination or PED process by which information or intelligence is gathered, made sense of, and put in products that are briefed to and consumed by senior decision makers. The intelligence can come from many different sources such as signals (SIGINT), images (IMINT), or humans (HUMINT). Analysts can specialize in each of these types of intelligence (or INT), which can then be combined by all-source analysts to create products that integrate and combine many types of INT. Simple right?

However, reintroducing affect reveals that a certain emotional satisfaction is derived by the espionage process. Knowing what others do not grants a feeling of being in on a secret, of being on “the inside,” of being “in the know,” a feeling of power. And that’s the key: controlling large armies doesn’t really confer power in the 21st century — though it helps — but having the crucial, inside information does. Of course leveraging that information for power, influence, and money is not always a straightforward process, but once again, it helps.

 

Finally there is the matter of reaching out, touching, and influencing other political actors, which in the IC is called operations, the fundamental activity of politics. So fundamental is this relationship between intelligence and operations that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has traditionally been comprised of two directorates: the Directorate of Intelligence (DI, now the Directorate of Analysis or DA) and the Directorate of Operations (DO). Of course there are many specialties and variations of the basics of intelligence gathering, analysis, and influence, which only appear to be ever more salient in the 21st century.

Supercar Lists

I have an affinity for what Esquire, back when it was good, called “dangerous knowledge.” We’re not talking about the kind of dangerous knowledge described by the BBC documentary in which scientists understand something so complex about the world that being unappreciated by their colleagues drives them to suicide. However, we are talking about an underlying order to the world around us that escapes the knowledge of the average person. Recently I read an article by Bret Berk at Car on Driver on supercar lists, which describes how the super rich buy special edition Aston Martins, McLarens, Porsches, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis that are even more expensive and exclusive than the cars that I already can’t afford — like this Porsche.

I could recount the article from my good friend Bret, but he did such a good job that it would be both redundant and hard to do. However let me review my three big takeaways. First, I didn’t even know there were specialty lists for even more exclusive than showroom exotic cars. I remember going to Jim Loose Imported Cars in Palo Alto growing up, which was like the coolest place in the world. But knowing that there are lists of buyers who are available to snap up even more exclusive and limited edition cars — that was a revelation to me.

Second of course is the economics drives the existence of these lists. Making high-end cars for wealthy clients is profitable because buyers will pay a premium for the additional exclusivity. Says Matt Clarke, Aston Martin North America’s director of marketing and communications. “I can be blunt and say the specials, as we call them, they’re profitable.” But mere money isn’t enough to buy one of these cars because there are a number of additional factors at play with these specials. It helps if you have a relationship with the local dealer by having bought cars from that marque previously. Also it helps if the car will be used frequently and shown widely, because it doesn’t make sense to have a beautiful car if nobody gets to see it or ride around in it. Finally it helps if you don’t turn around and sell the car immediately, because they do tend to appreciate, just to make a quick profit because that jeopardizes the relationship and — let’s face it — it just isn’t cool.

Finally, there’s a behavioral economics aspect to supercar lists that I found nonintuitive. When the list of high-end, wealthy clients is created by a manufacturer, they figure that half the people will “flake out” because they’re not liquid enough — that is, they don’t have the cash on hand — or their interest level isn’t high enough. Then the list is halved by the manufacturer again so only half the demand is met. This seems counterintuitive because they could make more money by making even more cars. However, by creating unmet demand, the manufacturer creates  greater satisfaction from the half who received a car and desire in the half who didn’t. This then creates an opportunity to push the desirous half to other products in the short-term or other lists in the long-term. It’s a complex business and a complicated world!

 

In the Belly of the Beast

Many conservatives want to quit their jobs and become a conservative writer full time. A few years ago, I actually did that in the belly of the liberal beast in Cambridge, MA at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which everybody just calls MIT. There I studied political science — what they call Course 17 — and was pretty excited about it because I already had degrees in electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) — what they call Course 6 — so I figured MIT was a natural fit.  I knew Cambridge was very liberal, but I figured so long as I kept my arguments logical and empirical and stayed away from quoting Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and William F. Buckley at length then I’d be okay.

Was I wrong! It turns out that Course 17 wasn’t just liberal, it was almost pure socialist. I thought when I was in Course 17 that I was at MIT, but it turns out that the thought processes of Course 17 are fundamentally different from and incompatible with Course 6. Figuring this out took a while though. And part of the reason I wanted to run this particular experiment — being a Course 6 guy in Course 17 — was to understand, “From where would the pressure come?” That is, how would I get in trouble, and how would I find out, and what would happen? Would it be a direct confrontation? Would it be a behind the back stealth attack? And how would I even know?

Even then I wouldn’t take the time to write up my experiences. conservatives when they tangle with socialists tend to take their licks and move on, which I understand and sometimes even admire, and I don’t want to be that guy that hangs onto something that would be better left forgotten. But the same socialist attacks I experienced at MIT were pretty severe, turned out to be just plain wrong, and have significant policy consequences. This write-up is being undertaken because I think the story might be entertaining and informative, but there’s just one way to find out — write it up and put it out there. However, there’s a second reason: similar attacks are being used by the political establishment and deep state in the United States Government (USG) to the point that they threaten the effectiveness of the USG and the health of America. So I want to write up what happened because what I experienced at MIT is constrained, defined, and historical. That is, I have the benefit of hindsight, while the current deep-state machinations being directed at the new administration are ongoing.  Experience shows that Course 17 likes the wealth and status associated with being at MIT, which is driven by the Institute’s excellence in EECS (Course 6), Physics (Course 8), and Mathematics (Course 18). The problem with Course 17 is that it doesn’t really stress the “science” in political science — instead it stresses the politics.

I earned by computer science degree at a different school on the east coast, and there I heard rumors of PhD students giving traditional lectures on say history with no leftist content or perspective and receiving phone calls in the middle of the night from rabid socialists who were going to “get them” and “destroy their careers.” Being a computer scientist, this made little sense, and I had to admit that I didn’t really believe the stories. I thought that the conservative students were insufficiently brave and that I was going to show them how it was done. After all, I was pretty smart and an EECS guy at an EECS school, what could go wrong? Besides, I wanted to help: I was a kid from America who wanted to do good. I was also smart enough to realize that one doesn’t go into a top department and start broadcasting that you’re a conservative from the start. So my initial position was to focus on the natural environment because it combined science, quantitative analysis, and policy, which seemed a natural combination that would be appreciated by the professors in Course 17. Understanding the behavior of the global environmental system required the science and engineering of Course 6, but formulating policies that preserved the global environment required an understanding of political science, policy, and Course 17.

In fact, it’s not even clear what being a “conservative” means. Classic works like those from Edmund Burke indicate that conservatism is more a perspective than a field of study, so I will devote some time to exploring that question in this blog. Finally, I realized that becoming a political science professor was a long shot, but I figured I could always fall back on my EECS degrees. It’s good to have a backup plan when doing something fun but not very remunerative like studying political science, and it turned out that backup plan was very much needed and returned benefits that were impossible to predict when I packed up a trailer, got in my car, and headed across country to big, bad MIT.

 

Spy Fiction

I grew up reading spy fiction, which was wonderful. In fact, so total was my commitment to that literary genre of espionage that I read little else. There were highs and lows — sometimes the quality of the prose wasn’t stellar, and sometime the plotting wasn’t exactly… realistic. My dad often wondered how these spies could keep going for days without sleeping, and indeed they did tend to go on for a while. But most importantly, they introduced the idea to me of how to operate abroad — in fact, spy fiction authors introduced me to the very idea that there was an abroad!

As I think about the current state of the globalized 21st century world, it seems that literary non-fiction or narrative journalism has a role to play in explaining today’s international milieu. That is, the relationship between politics, money, and interconnected global processes is so complex that it seems like there’s an opportunity for spy fiction to tell that story. Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse has done an excellent job showing how politicians are really salesmen for their corporate sponsors, especially those who have grown rich through globalization, trade, and legislation.

Explaining the machinations behind the deep state and the political establishment appears to be an amazing opportunity for a talented writer. Every time I go to DC, it seems like people go there from all over the world to engage in activities that the rest of America gets to pay for and deal with but knows very little about because the unelected deep-state establishment in DC is a society apart. So many espionage books focus on the Nazis of World War II or the Soviets of the Cold War, but the Bourne movies showed how those traditional themes and storylines can be reworked and placed into more modern settings.

And what might those modern settings be? Robert Ludlum’s Bourne novels are essentially timeless as they discuss the Kafka-esque theme of the individual within a bureaucracy. I am somewhat more partial to an insight John Le Carre had at the end of his career: specifically that the international action in the 21st century concerned multi-national corporations and economics rather than nation-states and security. I believe the Tailor of Panama was an early attempt, but it still feels dated and stale to me. They say that there are more spies running around now than ever before, so isn’t it natural to wonder what they’re doing?

James Comey Democrat Background Analysis

This is a good summary of Comey and his history that was received well on Breitbart so I decided to repost it here.

This was originally linked here by /u/shortadamlewis and sourced to Anon. I found another (much earlier) post about this here on a blog that credits a Facebook post.

I’ve also found this writeup by Steve Pieczenik helpful as well as the ongoing excellent analysis by Sundance at the The Conservative Treehouse

This analysis is based on the work of many other people; I’m just reposting it .

BEGIN OP

There are very few crime/mystery novels that approach this true story for compelling drama, intrigue and brinkmanship (with the nation in the balance).

Don’t believe the fake-media story that Trump made a mistake or huge gaffe by firing Comey.

Don’t believe the media narrative from the left that it was an attempt to silence Comey from some investigation into Trump.

Don’t believe the RINO narrative that Comey is a good guy just trying to do his job in terrible circumstances and the timing was bad.

Don’t believe the lie that Comey was admired and respected by career FBI investigators and agents.

Don’t believe the lie that Trump’s “tweets” are not professional and have no strategic purpose. His tweets are ‘weaponized’ and deadly.

James Comey is a poisonous snake of the highest order… a deep-water Swamp Denizen who has been highly paid to deliberately provide cover for high-level corruption by the Clintons and Obama. He is has been central to trying to destroy the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration from the start. He is as dirty as they come in DC. He had highest-level cover (the FBI no less) and was deep into an effort to eliminate Trump. Trump had to move hard, fast, and at exactly the right time to cut the head off the snake without getting bitten by the snake or being finished by the other swamp denizens.

Begin by noticing how the President fired Comey when Comey was 3,000 miles away from his office, that Comey had no inkling he was being cut, that all his files, computers, and everything in his office were seized by his boss Sessions and the justice department.

This was not a violation of protocol, it was tactical. Notice how Prez Trump compartmentalized the strike and did not inform any of his White House “staff” to prevent leaks. Notice how he emasculated Comey and the swamp denizens by letting them know in a tweet that the Attorney General got information (surveillance “tapes” from the seizure of Comey’s office) to let Comey and his handlers know that Trump’s DOJ has the goods on them. This was a brilliant, strategic and totally imperative move at exactly the right time against horrible, evil and corrupt powers infesting our government. The swamp is on notice that the President is on to them, they are sweating bullets because their criminal games of corruption are being pursued and they know it. They are screaming and ranting because they are desperate denizens of the swamp who are beginning to realize they are roadkill.

THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE COMEY SCAM. Taken from credible public sources (readily available if you want to look or want me to sent them to you), with a few reasonable “fill in the blank” conclusions of my own.

The Highlights:

Comey was a minor assistant US attorney in the late 90’s. He only gained power and money by being the DOJ official who “investigated” and cleared Bill Clinton of any wrong-doing in Clinton’s totally corrupt pardon (for huge payoffs) of criminal financier Marc Rich as Clinton was leaving the Presidency. This is how Comey began his career as a creature of the “swamp” years ago, as a servant of the Clintons.

Comey provided “cover” for the Clintons in their gaining incredible power and wealth after leaving office through pardoning a billionaire money-launderer, arms dealer and criminal. Comey was a key piece in how the Clintons upped their corruption game and gained incredible wealth through their foundation after leaving the White House.

A huge part of the scheme was giving Marc Rich a free pass when he should have spent life in prison, and that is what Comey covered-up for the Clintons. This set up Comey to be part of the corruption machine, making him powerful and wealthy.

Immediately after doing the Clinton’s dirty work as a DOJ official, Comey resigned from the DOJ and took a position as the head attorney (Counsel) of the Lockheed Martin company, a huge military contractor. While he was in that position Lockheed became a major contributor (millions) to the Clinton Foundation and its fake charity spin-offs. In return for these payment to Clinton Inc., Lockheed received huge contracts with Hillary’s state department. Comey was the chief legal officer of Lockheed throughout this period of contributions to Clinton Inc. in return for State Dept. contracts.

In late 2012, after overseeing Lockheed’s successful relationship with the Hillary State Department and the resulting profits, Comey stepped down from Lockheed and received a $6 million dollar payout for his services.

In 2013, the largest bank of England, HSBC Holdings, was deep into a scandal. Investigations by federal authorities and law-enforcement had revealed that for years HSBC had been laundering billions of dollars for Mexican Drug Cartels, channeling money for Saudi banks who were financing terror, moving money for Iran in violation of the sanctions, and other major criminal activity.

HSBC’s criminality was pervasive and deliberate by the Bank and its officials. HSBC was a huge Clinton Foundation contributor (many millions) throughout the “investigation” and Bill Clinton was being paid large personal fees for speaking at HSBC events (while Hillary was Sec of State). Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department did what they were paid to do, and let HSBC off of the hook for a paltry 1.2 Billion dollar fine (paid by its stockholders), and not one Director, officer or management member at HSBC was fired or charged with any criminal.

Exactly when everyone involved with HSBC Bank (including the Clintons and all of their “donors”) were being let off without penalty, and cover had to be provided to HSBC, Comey was appointed as a Director and Member of the Board of HSBC (in the middle of the fallout from the scandal). He was part of the effort to cover up the scandal and make HSBC “respectable” again.

After about a year as HSBC director, despite his lack of any law enforcement experience, no DOJ leadership experience, and no qualifications for the job, Comey was appointed FBI director by Obama.

The only qualification Comey had was that the Clinton’s and their cronies knew Comey was in bed with them, was compromised and was willing to do their dirty work. Comey was appointed to the FBI right when Hillary was leaving the State Department, and was vulnerable to the FBI because she had been using a private-server, mis-handling classified information, selling access to favors/contracts from the State Department to Clinton Foundation Donors (including Comey’s Lockheed Martin), and much more.

Remember that this was about the time the Inspector General of the State Department found over 2 billion “missing” from the State Department finances during Hillary’s tenure.

The obvious conclusion is that Comey was appointed to the FBI (along with other reliable Clinton-Obama cronies) to run interference for the Clinton’s and Obama’s at the nation’s federal law enforcement agency (in conjunction with a corrupt Department of Justice). Comey was and is owned by the Clintons. He owed all of his power and wealth to being part of their machine and providing them with cover.

In late 2015 and early 2016, information began to come out about the Clinton Foundation and its use by the Clinton’s as a multi-billion dollar slush fund for corruption and political favors (even Chelsea’s wedding had been paid for by the “charity.)

This was right as Hillary was beginning her campaign for President. It was revealed that the Foundation had never completed required reports or had an audit. Supposedly the FBI, under Comey, began an “investigation” of the Clinton Funds. A “professional” accounting firm was brought in by the Clintons to do a review, file some reports, make recommendations to the Clinton Foundation Board, and provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Clinton Fund operations. Predictably, one of the partners in the firm that was chosen (and paid lots of money) is the brother of James Comey (FBI Director).

This brother owes James Comey $700,000 for a loan James gave him to buy a house, and presumably some of the money from the Clinton Fund was used to make payments to James on the loan. Over 2 years later and nothing has happened as a result of the FBI “investigating” the Clinton Funds under Comey.

No one in congress or federal law enforcement was intending to actually pursue the Clintons, but Judicial Watch and other independent sources obtained information proving that Hillary had been running her own server, sending out classified information, etc. This information began to come out right in the middle of her campaign to be coronated as President. A “show” investigation had to be performed to appear to look into it and clear her. Who to use?…the reliable shill James Comey.

As head of the FBI, Comey (and his lackeys in key positions) deliberately screwed up the investigation into Hillary’s use of a private server and her plain violation of national security law on classified information. The investigation was deliberately mis-handled in every aspect.

Comey gave immunity to all of Hillary’s lackeys

Did not use subpoenas or warrants *

Lost evidence

Allowed the destruction of evidence

Failed to do any searches or seizures of evidence

Did not use a grand-jury *

Did not swear witnesses

Did not record testimony

Allowed attorneys to represent multiple suspects (corrupting the testimony).

(My note: around the time / after this OP was made – it was revealed a Grand Jury and subpoenas were used but I have no idea in what manner as I haven’t researched fully – we’ve know some people were issued subpoenas but I don’t know the extent and who was and wasn’t served. Grand jury info just came out April/May 2017. )

Everything that could be done to ruin the FBI investigation and to cover for Hillary was done. A “slam-dunk” case became a mess. Immunity was given every witness even though they provided no help.

Maybe more importantly, by focusing the FBI on the email scandal, attention was drawn away from the much bigger scandal of the Clinton Foundation that could bring down a huge number of corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and even governments.

Originally, Comey’s job was simply to totally botch the Hillary investigation and ruin the case against her and her minions within the FBI regarding he emails. At the same time Comey also started work on a parallel assignment to illegally “wiretap” and surveil Donald Trump and every other person involved in the Republican campaign. He was tasked with digging up any dirt or fact that could be used to hurt the Trump campaign later.

This included using a fake “dossier” paid for by the Clinton campaign to obtain authorization for the surveillance and to try to associate Trump’s campaign with the Russians. Under Comey’s direction the Trump/republican campaign was monitored and surveilled and all information was provided to the Obama Whitehouse and the Clinton camp all during the campaign.

Lorretta Lynch was supposed to complete the cover-up for Hillary as Attorney General by issuing a finding that the deliberately botched FBI “investigation” did not justify prosecution of Hillary. But someone screwed up and Bill Clinton was video’d meeting with Loretta Lynch in Arizona shortly before she was supposed to make her decision on Hillary (interference with a federal investigation), and Lynch could no longer credibly squash the Hillary scandal.

The solution, give the job to James. The Clinton’s owned him and he would have to do whatever is necessary to provide cover. Comey goes on national TV and violates every rule of the FBI, the Justice Department and American law enforcement by revealing some of the FBI’s “evidence” of what Hillary did (enough to make it look like the FBI and Comey did some investigation), then declaring that there was no “intent” and clearing Hillary. He did what he was ordered to do. The Justice Department and Obama backed Comey’s coverup and it looked like Hillary had survived the scandal.

Then, right before the election, the NYPD obtained pervert Anthony Wiener’s laptop and found classified emails from Hillary on the laptop. The NYPD began leaking details to new-media outlets, and the story was about to explode. Comey once again stepped in to cover Hillary. He short-circuited the NYPD leaks by publicly acknowledging the laptop and the emails, but then claimed just days later that hundreds of thousands of emails had all been reviewed and “nothing new” was on the laptop. Once again, he had done his job. Providing cover and FBI “protection” for Hillary on the newest scandal when it broke.

The surveillance of the Trump campaign is continued after he is elected, all participants are “unmasked” illegally, and the transcripts are leaked throughout the government and to the media.

When General Flynn appropriately calls Russian officials on behalf of Trump, they brush off the old fake “dossier” and all of the surveillance of the campaign, and Comey creates the “Russian Conspiracy” investigation.

With help by RINO swamp kingpin and warmonger sell-out McCain, the fake “Russian pee dossier” is leaked to the press. There is no actual evidence of any collusion or connection between Trump or his campaign with Russia, but that does not prevent Comey from initiating an “investigation” at the FBI. This provides Comey with protection from Trump firing him immediately.

Comey (or his minions) constantly leak news of the “Russia Investigation” to the media, and the media does its scripted part by screaming constantly about “Russia.” The Democrats fill their role and constantly scream about “Russia.” McCain and the RINO establishment do their part by promising to “investigate” how the Russians influenced the campaign.

Immediately after Trump is sworn in, the DOJ Hillary/Obama operatives and Comey start the direct attack. This is before Sessions has been appointed to the Department of Justice and the DOJ is still controlled by Obama operatives.

DOJ Obama appointee Sally Yates approaches the Whitehouse with news that General Flynn had been in contact with Russia and alleges that he might be compromised. She reveals that there is an FBI “investigation” into the Russia ties (which they are constantly leaking to the media themselves). The White House Counsel (who Yates talks to, not Trump) asks for some more information.

This is a two-pronged attack. It protects Comey and DOJ democrat holdovers from being terminated by the new administration because they are involved in an “ongoing investigation” that they control the timetable on (albeit one with absolutely no evidence).

If Trump fires Comey then he is “interfering with the investigation” which is itself a federal crime that the FBI could then “investigate.” Alternatively, if they can get Trump to question Comey about Flynn or try to get him to back off of Flynn or the “Russia” investigation, then they again have him “interfering.”

Trump knows it is a set up by Comey and that he is probably being recorded (tips from FBI or DOJ who are not part of the corruption?) Maybe because his phone calls in the Whitehouse as President have already been bugged and released to the media. (FBI is in the best position to do this.) Maybe because he was used to the Mafia in NY trying to shake him down every time he built a hotel.

Comey tells Trump that Trump is not under investigation regarding Russia, but that others involved with the campaign are being investigated. Trump does not take the bait and attempt to intervene about Flynn or the Russia scam. Later, Flynn is cut loose because he is being used by Comey and the Obama-holdover Justice to try to damage Trump. He did nothing wrong, but if he stayed the charge of “interfering with an investigation” might seem to have teeth. Comey verbally tells Trump on two more occasions that he is not being investigated, but refuses to state this fact publicly or when testifying in Congress.

Trump knows everything I have gone through above about Comey. But he has to move carefully. He has to get his Attorney General and Deputy AG in place, get enough leverage on the Russia narrative, and ideally get rid of Comey in a way that allows him to obtain all the information that Comey has been accumulating (if he is taping Trump he is taping others.)

Comey, and others testify in Congress. Under oath, both Sally Yates and Intelligence officials from the Obama administration state that there has been no actual evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. More importantly, Comey, while refusing to say that Trump is not under investigation, testifies that he has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee heads who exactly is under investigation regarding Russia.

Trump tells almost no one at the White House that he is moving against Comey (so no leaks… no listening in on his conversations.) Trump somehow contacts Sen. Grassley (the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and confirms that Comey told the Senator that Trump was not under investigation personally. Trump gets both the Attorney General and the new Deputy Attorney General to legitimately review Comey’s unprofessional actions at the FBI and to recommend in writing that Trump terminate Comey. Somehow Comey goes to California (at the request of AG Sessions or already scheduled and someone at FBI telling Trump?)

Trump seizes the moment and acts. While Comey is in California, 3000 miles away and 7 hours from his office, Trump prepares a letter firing him (with Sessions and the Deputy AG recommendations attached). In the letter Trump states that he had been told 3 times by Comey that he (Trump) was not under investigation.

The letter is hand-delivered to the FBI headquarters by DOJ officials to lock-down and seize everything in Comey’s office, including all surveillance files (“tapes”) of Trump and others. All of Comey’s files, docs, computers and “tapes” are taken to Sessions at DOJ. They are not taken to the Whitehouse or Trump, but to Sessions, who has every right to have them. Sessions can tell Trump that Comey had surveillance tapes of Trump that contradict what Comey has been telling Trump, and perhaps tapes of conversations with other swamp “conspirators.” But Trump does not have them personally or at the Whitehouse.

Comey learns he has been fired when the media broadcasts it in California. He had no idea it was coming and he is ticked. On cue, the Democrat politicians and media begin screaming about Trump’s “interference with the Russia investigation” in accordance with the plan to set up Trump for that charge.

The Swamp wants to blow up the Russia narrative using Comey, and Comey is set to testify before Congress to try to hurt Trump by saying he was interfering with the FBI investigation. Comey intends to follow through with the plan to take down Trump. But because of his brilliant timing on this, Trump has Comey’s files, documents and information safely with Sessions at DOJ. Trump sends out a “crazy” tweet that says: “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press.”

The media and the politicians go crazy about the “inappropriateness” of this tweet. They accuse Trump of “taping” everyone at the White House (forgetting that the Presidents phone calls with foreign leaders have been “taped” without his knowledge.)

Notice that Trump did not say he taped anyone, or that he has any tapes at the White House. It seem apparent that Trump is telling Comey that the DOJ (who has every legal right to possess it) has the surveillance information and files from Comey’s office, the “tapes” obtained and kept by Comey.

Comey and all the Swamp Creatures understand the clear message… their plan has failed and Trump’s DOJ is now holding all the cards.

The whole Russia interference scheme crashes and burns. While the mouthpiece media, Hollywood and the insane fringe continue to scream about Russia and Comey being fired, the politicians who will soon be in the crosshairs of a legitimate (and ticked) FBI and DOJ are starting to fall strangely silent. Comey realizes all the leverage is with Trump and that he will be lucky if he is not added to the Clinton Death List because of his knowledge (better not take any baths near an electrical outlet or get on any airplanes).

AG Sessions and his Deputy AG use the Comey trove of information to determine who has been part of the Comey Syndicate at the FBI. They will be appointing an “interim” Director of the FBI shortly who has not been compromised by Comey, Clinton or Obama.

That “interim” Director does not have to be approved by Congress or anyone, and can immediately begin cleaning house at the FBI of all Comey/Clinton/Obama minions, initiating investigations of the Clintons, Clinton Fund, violations of intelligence confidentiality laws by Susan Rice and Obama, human trafficking in DC, political corruption… draining the Swamp.

Using the Comey files they can be fairly certain they are not getting another Comey as an “interim”, and they do not have to wait for the circus of appointing a new permanent “Director” through Congressional approval. Most of the heavy lifting on rooting out FBI corruption and starting investigations into the swamp will be done by the “interim” before a new director is appointed. I suspect the Trump administration hopes the approval FBI Director process will be slow and tedious, so there is no political interference with the housecleaning that is starting.

In one masterstroke, Trump has eliminated a truly toxic and dangerous enemy to his administration and our country, dealt a horrendous blow to the Clinton/Obama and deep state machines, begun the restoration of the integrity of the FBI and the DOJ, and gained incredible ammunition to begin hunting the foul creatures in the swamp.

GIVE /u/jeremybryce SOME LOVE (he helped compile all of this data and he is an ULTRA BASED PEDE).

Legitimacy and Efficacy

Joshua Cohen’s emphasis on deliberative democracy stresses the philosophical notion of legitimacy, which he frames in terms of justice, social justice, and equality. What is missing is any notion of efficacy—that is, do the claimed benefits actually obtain, and if they don’t, then why do they not? This kind of efficacy analysis is not usually performed because, for the political left, legitimacy is preeminent over efficacy.

One might be tempted to conclude that efficacy doesn’t matter, which is to say that consequences don’t matter, but that’s not quite true. Consequences do matter, but they’re tailored to be delivered to carefully selected groups, while taxing the one group with resources to tax, the American and British middle classes. So there’s a natural strategy of persuasion build into deliberative democracy, which is the latest in a long line of democracy-based influenced strategies:

I will end this note with an admittedly too-long quote from C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters:

Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose. The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.

You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.

The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.

I heard a phrase at the end of the 20th century, “the advertising ethic,” which means, “the truth is that which sells.” Cohen’s deliberative democracy, to the extend that it is based in ethics, is rooted in the advertising ethic because its efficacy or consequences never seem to be evaluated. In the real world, legitimacy is transformed into a strategy for persuasion, a kind of “get out of argument free” card. Causal critics are employed only as a cudgel to bash one’s political opponents. True ethics is based in efficacy, consequences, and results: as Jesus said,  “A tree is known by its fruits.”

Deliberative or Delusional Democracy?

I was traveling with a colleague of mine this weekend who brought up the concept of deliberative democracy (DD). Whenever thinking about DD, I turn immediately to Professor Joshua Cohen who is arguably one of the greatest geniuses of political philosophy in the history of the world—right up there with Plato, Kant, and Herbert Marcuse. Cohen defines DD with great sensitivity, learnedness, and dare I say, bravery—in 1989:

  1. An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
  2. The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
  3. A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
  4. The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
  5. Each member recognizes and respects other members’ deliberative capacity.

DD can thus be thought of as the legislative process that we “owe” one another, which includes giving reasons for one’s proposals. Cohen’s DD is more of a theory of legitimacy that is based on the idea of achieving ideal deliberation.

Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving “ideal deliberation”:

  1. It is free in two ways:
    1. The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
    2. The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
  2. Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
  3. Participants are equal in two ways:
    1. Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
    2. Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. “The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals.”
  4. Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.

However, despite the soaring genius of Cohen and the heartbreaking beauty of his deliberative democracy, there is one slight problem, and that problem is—reality.

You could imagine whatever the collective noun is for philosophers, lawyers, and political scientists—let’s call it a murder—encamping in a legislature, parliament, congress, or the supreme soviet to debate and reach agreements. But the fact remains that agreements reached by that murder has no bearing on the outside world. There’s a kind of mania or delusion that occurs in such deliberative bodies in which those high on status and their own egos image the benighted souls not privy to the deliberations are waiting outside, breathlessly, for word of the vote and the agreements to they can be instructed on how to lead their lives. The fact that this is true is indicated by the number of councils and committees who have oil portraits done of themselves at testaments to their sagacity, virtue, and selflessness. In fact, these have just been prohibited in the US Congress.

YPC wouldn’t really mind though if these murderers did a good job—after all, rank has its privileges (RHIP)—but the fact of the matter is that these legislatures and the decisions they generate are terrible, and the fact that these murderers feel that their activities merit oil portraits is jus a single manifestation of delusional democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville argued explicitly after traveling the length and breadth of this land taking notes and thinking about what he saw—as opposed to merely reading extensively the other theorists from one’s democracy echo-chamber and contemplating what one has read from one’s Ivory tower academic perch—said that democracy does not promote excellence and that democracy so overtakes one’s mind that one forgets that other matters like, reality.

The examples are near endless, starting with King Canute in 1027. His flattering courtiers engaged in deliberative democracy and decided that Canute could order the tide to stop. Canute ordered his throne placed on the beach and ordered the tide not to come in, and yet it did come in. Now Professor Cohen may argue that the illegitimate monarchical order of Canute could not stop the tide but an agreement arrived at through deliberative democracy could, but YPC has his doubts.

And yet the shortcomings of democracy keep on coming. Specifically, I think of the American and British government’s experiment with deliberative democracy in the 1990s in which they sought to reflect the will of their people. As it turns out however, the British people didn’t care to deliberate matters like bridge maintenance until they had deferred said maintenance for so long that the bridges, like London Bridge, were falling down. So as it turns out, deliberative democracy when implemented in its extreme for guaranteed an almost maximally dysfunctional society, but the citizens could warm themselves with the knowledge that the decisions were stamped with the imprimatur of deliberative democracy while their bridges were falling down, which is, in its own way, delusional too.

So too, the ballot issues in California form another kind of extreme democracy that is ultimately unworkable. I remember looking at a ballot with tens of confusingly worded questions and thinking, “I’m a smart guy who’s really interested and can’t keep this stuff straight. How is this going to work across the whole population in the whole state?” The answer is confusingly and poorly. But sadly, that’s the way California has been going for decades. Deliberative democracy works great in theory, it’s just that when applied in reality, it turns into delusional democracy.